community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
TERRY GROSS -- NPR WARMONGER!!
by JA
Thursday, Feb. 06, 2003 at 11:14 AM
TERRY GROSS - NPR WARMONGER: 1/23/03 npr.org audio archive interview URLs to listen to her "FRESH (???) AIR" program interview where she bashes the anti-war movement!
Listen to TERRY GROSS - NPR (Nat'l Propaganda Radio) WARMONGER - host of "FRESH(???) AIR" bash the anti-war movement!:
1/23/03 npr.org audio archive URLs to listen to the "Fresh Air" interviews:
- Listen to Terry suck up to Todd Gitlin in this cottonball (not even softball) interview--
Todd Gitlin interview segment:
http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=933161
- Listen to Terry bash and red-bait the anti-war movement as a bunch of dupes in the most hostile interview I've heard outside of Bill O'Reilly's show--
Int'l ANSWER interview segment with Mara Verheyden Hilliard:
http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=933163
Gross -- 'uh-huh, so Saddam *is* going to nuke New York, yeah?' -- held a cottonball interview with Todd Gitlin -- who did his usual red-baiting and dupes-accusing thing. But Gitlin's undisclosed *real* purpose for attacking the anti-war movement is because much of it also supports the Palestinian human rights cause.
(Gitlin is indirectly firing flak for Israel, who many say is the *real* reason the White House is so chomping for war. This, so that Israel can use the war as cover to complete its crushing or ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Major segments of the anti-war movement, including many progressive Jewish organizations, significantly support the cause of Palestinian human rights.)
Then Gross interviewed a representative from ANSWER, in which the otherwise staid Gross herself almost viciously attacked and red-baited the anti-war movement in the most blatantly biased interview I've ever heard *anyone*, let alone Gross, conduct. Bill O'Reilly would have been proud! (Note to Gross: In a *coalition* not everyone has to agree on the specifics of everyone else's political program -- just on the goal!)
- Today (2/5/03) - NPR WARMONGER TERRY GROSS (who apparently has quite a lot of hair on her chest) interviewed TWO "liberal interventionists" (one a psychologist for REAL brainfixing!) -- that's euphemism for "pseudo-liberal warmongers" -- or "conservative war propagandists posing as a liberal" -- on NPR's "Fresh Air". No peace activists--like Global Exchange's co-founder/-director Medea Benjamin--were interviewed.
Contact:
NPR Main Number: (202) 513-2000
WHYY in Philadelphia: Tel: (215) 351-1200
(215) 923-WHYY
Terry Gross: tgross@whyy.org
freshair@whyy.org
ombudsman@npr.org
talkback@whyy.org
should you feel compelled.
In defense of Terry Gross
by Anthony
Thursday, Feb. 06, 2003 at 2:31 PM
anotaro@libcom.com
It seems to me that this invective against Terry Gross is somewhat exagerrated and misdirected. in her interview with Mara Verheyden Hilliard, she asked the questions and voiced the concerns that many people within the peace movement do have about International ANSWER and its affiliations with the Workers World Party. Further to her credit, she allowed Ms. Hilliard the full opportunity to respond to these criticisms completely and without interruption. It is entirely acceptable to raise these issues and hold those with controversial views accountable for their public statements. Of course we all know that the peace movement is a coalition of people of many different backgrounds and opinions that are united in the struggle to avoid an immoral war. But when the organizers themselves are said to hold questionably moral political affinities for dictators and despots responsible for some of the worst offenses to human rights, it is only fair that they be questioned about these allegations and held responsible for their position. Is this an excuse to divide and conquer the peace movement? I think not. Rather, it is people like Terry Gross who will keep the peace movement honest about its affiliations in the interest of full and fair disclosure. I mean, who else is giving International ANSWER a national public semi-mainstream forum to respond to its critics? Let's not stifle dialogue; honest debate is not redbaiting.
Nationalist Propaganda Radio
by JA
Sunday, Feb. 09, 2003 at 9:28 AM
Terry Gross is an *arch*-pro-Israel Jew, so that explains her opposition to much of the anti-war movement's sympathy toward the Palestinian human rights cause and their struggle, and thus Gross’s anti-Semite-baiting the anti-war movement. She is also, along with Gitlin, firing flak for Israel.
Also, WHYY is in Philadelphia--the home of one of the most historically, notoriously *racist* police department since the days of police captain Frank Rizzo. This is the place where the police shamelessly framed former Black Panther Mumia Abu Jamal for murder. (Hmmm..., has *that* ever happened before!!!???) I'm sure Gross wants to suck up to the Philadelphia police department and city politics, as well, and fire flak for them too. I'm sure she loves--as a well-known radio personality, a celebrity in her own right--to be invited to all the city’s political establishment events, local elite social ceremonies, and other local celebrity affairs.
Part and parcel of ANSWER's mission is to "End Racism". As an African American I appreciate that. I guess that Gross, along with Gitlin, consider the goal of ending racism, support for human rights of an indigenous people against an oppressive colonial state with a racist ideology, and supporting even a black man's right to a fair trial, "lunatic fringe" issues.
Hypocritically, naturally, it is *now* Gitlin--who has long criticized *people of color* for what *he* defines as "identity politics", factionalism, sectarianism, undermining unity, and "divisiveness" (meaning, for Gitlin, that 'privileged white boys' no longer dominate movements), rather than "working together" (as though progressive people of color never do, and now in multicultural organizations along with progressive whites)--who is engaging in his own, as yet undefined, "identity politics", factionalism, sectarianism, divisiveness, and undermining of unity for the common goal--when it suits *his* own hidden personal agenda, or rather ambition.
I've personally known Todd Gitlin for a long time. He used to come up to me with his latest 'intellectual' sociopolitical musings in Berkeley cafes all the time--expecting me to agree with him--because I looked like "a good black," "a *responsible* black", to him. (My prrroper dic-tion, my edu-ca-ted vocabulary, my intellectual persona, my kempt appearance and all, from the jungle to a hoity-toity classical music cafe [hey, it was right across from campus!]: a sheer *'triumph'* of white civilization!) But, I was *never* all that intellectually impressed with Todd, even before his final shift to *criticizing* people of color and social justice movements, instead of supposedly supporting them.
I bet that Todd Gitlin wasn't intellectually 'all that' even back when that "privileged white boy" was head of Berkeley SDS--and I bet that even a lot of other whites--less privileged men and especially women--knew that way back then. The game that the Horowitzes, the Hitchenses, and Gitlins play--as "privileged white boys"--is that they will gain the most media attention however they can (especially as "Contrarians"): whether that's on the left or ultimately even on the right.
Just as Bobby Seale once said: "Anytime you [those] 'white college boys' get tired of this social justice protesting and wanna go make some big money, you can go change your clothes, cut your hair, put on a blue suit and tie, say that 'I'm sorry, I was just young and having fun,' and go to work for some big corporation or 'The Man': and he'll accept you back into the fold and you can get rich! Whereas we black dissidents might end up in prison, left poor, or forgotten."
Now that, since the Reagan decade, it'sno longer as fashionable to be a "Contrarian" on the left--in a movement no longer led primarily by 'privileged white boys'--Gitlin, Hitchens, and, long before, Horowitz, wanting to 'come in from the cold', now desiring to make much more money and gain a "respectable" high establishment status (wanting to be *regular*, *welcomed* guests on NPR or the Sunday TV political pundit shows), they now want to be "Contrarians" on (for) the right!
Either way they get a lot of attention, huhmmm...?
NPR *PRETENDS* to be objective while it clearly is *NOT*!! It's not even *FAIR*!! Otherwise, they would have someone on like anti-war activists Daniel Ellsberg, Medea Benjamin, who they *can't* personally bash; or Palestinian leaders, scholars, spokespersons or journalists like Edward Said, Hanan Ashrawi, Tariq Ali, Hatem Bazian, Asad Abu-Khalil; anti-Zionist progressive Jewish leaders, journalists and academics like Joel Beinin, Jeffrey Blankfort, Tim Wise, Adam Shapiro (and his Palestinian wife), Barbara Lubin of Middle East Childrens' Alliance (whose childrens' centers in the West Bank Israel repeatedly bombs or vandalizes to destruction); representatives of organized Mumia supporters and/or his attorneys (instead of people on to just trash the cause for his fair trial with more police propaganda); progressive political analysts like NOAM CHOMSKY, Alexander Coburn; journalists like Robert Fisk (Mideast specialist) or Greg Palast (who investigated the Florida elections); veteran multicultural activists like Yuri Kochiyama; multiculturalism authors like Ishmael Reed, Carlos Munoz, Ronald Takaki; educational standardized test experts like Jay Rosner and David White; progressive musicians like Ani DiFranco; and many other prominent progressives NPR would *never* have on. Why not as many people from the left as from the right. What happened to the 'capitalist' "marketplace of ideas"?
Even many--sometimes most--of the phone calls to NPR's "Talk of the Nation" interview call-in shows, if you would notice, are to the left of the establishment (read, at least right-leaning) "experts" that TOTN has on. (In fact, TOTN operator-screeners try to screen phone calls from a politically progressive perspective--and especially authentic people of color perspective--and will try to argue with you on the phone, unless you ask a namby-pamby decoy question or otherwise try to dummy it down until you get to actually talk to the guests.) They at NPR *DO* softball/cottonball interviews of their establishment propagandists. That's plenty reason to "bash" NPR. I'm glad I score a legitimate, obvious and direct hit.
Misdirected anger
by Anthony
Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2003 at 3:39 AM
Let me see if I have your logic straight. So Terry Gross' talk show is taped in Philly. All Philly cops are racist. Therefore Terry Gross supports racism and war. Come on and give me a break will you. She is a Jew,so she is an "*arch*-pro-Israel Jew? If you ask me this sounds like Zionist baiting....
I believe that it is true that the Palestinian people are being oppressed by the Israeli regime. This does not stop me from being sympathetic to Jews who have been touched personally by the horrors of Palestinian terrorist acts. No ones hands are free from the blood of these atrocities. The more that we foster hatred for one group or another, the further anyone is to an end to the ongoing tragedies.
As far as International ANSWER's mission being to end racism and stop war, I am all for it. I do agree that the primary basis for many wars and the disregard for casualties of other races has as its basis an underlying core of dispicable racist ideology. But if International ANSWER or any of its affiliates in the Workers World Party feel that it is right to publicly praise despots like Kim Jong Il for preserving a socialist state in the face of worldwide imperialist capitalism, I feel that they should be taken to task for their positions. How can one support human rights and civil liberties as well as a murderous and cruel despot without recognizing some kind of conflict of interests at work?
Why don't you try focusing on your real opponents in this struggle? I can tell you right now, it is not open-minded and relatively rational people like Terry Gross.
I stand by my earlier statements that NPR is one of the only semi-mainstream media outlets giving any kind of voice and coverage to the anti-war movement.
I have heard NPR called alot of things by alot of people (National Palestinian Radio by the right wing; Nationalist Propganda Radio by the left) but it all seems unfounded and polemical without any basis in reality.
This is exactly the type of division that the American left does not need in these times. Certainly there must still remain room for debate and disagreement and a small amount of intellectual humility in the event that we may be wrong in some of our beliefs, yet always open and willing to reevaulate there beliefs in an objective way.
As for your comments about "white boys" playing radicals, I find them to be racist and insulting. We all stand to lose fundamental human and civil rights at the hands of the current administration's draconian war on terrorism. But now is not the time to be divisive amongst those who share similar although, understandably divergent viewpoints.
Increasing Criticism of ANSWER
by Anthony
Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2003 at 2:21 AM
anotaro@libcom.com
Yet another argument against the divisive tactics and questionable politics of ANSWER came today in this article in Salon.com. No it wasn't written by David Horowitz, but by Michelle Goldberg who has written several sympathetic pieces on the anti-war movement. In this essay she recounts how rabbi Michael Lerner, an outspoken peace activist, critic of Ariel Sharon and was banned by ANSWER from speaking at this weekend's rally in San Francisco because of his belief that Israel has the right to exist.
The coalition organizing the rally released this press release regarding the exclusion of Lerner:
"One of the first agreements that was made between the groups organizing the Feb. 16 anti-war protest was that none of the coalitions would propose rally speakers who had publicly attacked or worked to discredit one of the coalition groups. When members of the Tikkun Community, who have actively participated in the organizing meetings for Feb. 16, suggested to Bay Area United for Peace and Justice that it propose Michael Lerner as a speaker, it was explained by members of UPJ that since he had publicly attacked A.N.S.W.E.R. in both the New York Times and Tikkun community email newsletters, his inclusion in the program would violate the agreement among the Feb. 16 organzing groups."
Michael Berube, whose petition in protest of the exclusion of Lerner stated that ANSWER has "put the interests of sectarianism ahead of the interests of all those who oppose this foolish and unnecessary war" and declared "ANSWER's unfitness to lead mass mobilizations against war in Iraq", had this to say about the agreement mentioned in the coalition's press release:
"This proviso seems harmless on its face, and reciprocal to boot: any attack on one is an attack on all, and all antiwar groups will have an equal say with regard to speakers. Fair enough. But in practice, of course, this agreement is profoundly asymmetrical. Since ANSWER is the only group among the four that's been publicly criticized, this provision basically works to ensure that only ANSWER-approved speakers will be allowed to speak at antiwar rallies. "
Of course the point to all of this is that ANSWER is stifling debate with its critics. This does not seem to me to be the path toward a more free and open society. Should not everyone's position be heard so that we could then work toward compromises which benefit everyone? It is clear that Michael Lerner respected ANSWER's right to hold their position even if he disagreed with them on some points. What is not clear is why they would deny him the same courtesy. The common goal of the anti-war movement is to stop the war not to toe the party line for ANSWER and the Workers World Party. It is a shame when voices which espouse this same goal are silenced.
Terry Gross open-minded? ANSWER this!
by Bev
Friday, Jun. 13, 2003 at 7:20 AM
Anthony: "Why don't you try focusing on your real opponents in this struggle? I can tell you right now, it is not open-minded and relatively rational people like Terry Gross."
--And Terry Gross and NPR (Nat'l Pentagon Radio) is one of those major corporate media opponents of the anti-war movement. And war is the biggest corporate business in America. NPR has never had anti-war representatives on before, and the one time they have one on, it's to call everyone else anti-Semitic, lunatic fringe, commie dupes. Why didn't Gross have Medea Benjamin, of Global Exchange, on? Because Gross couldn't red-bait Medea Benjamin. I'm glad that the ANSWER representative handled herself so well and made Gross look as "AIRY" and low and stupid as she is (with Gross' otherwise amiable daffiness).
It's OBVIOUS that Anthony did not actually LISTEN to the show (or the audofile link provided). If he did, he would definitely NOT say that Gross was "open-minded" (which makes me wonder if he has some sort of working, or otherwise, relationship with her). "Open-minded" is NOT spending the entire interview insinuating that anti-war marchers are commie dupes (a charge leveled against the Civil Rights and anti-Apartheid movements, as well as the anti-Vietnam War movement), anti-Semites (because many support Palestinian human rights in an oppressive, settler-colonial, semi-theocratic Israeli state), and lunatic fringe (because many support the right of a black man, Mumia Abu-Jamal, to a fair trial without prosecutorial and police shenanigans and evidence tampering and planting).
If Gross were "open-minded" she might have asked about the goals and issues of the anti-war movement, the marchers, and why they opposed the war: why they think that the U.S. should not bomb a country whose dictator the U.S. was once happily allied to, armed, supplied and built up during the very time Saddam commited the crimes and atrocities, or was building the so-called "WMD", of which the U.S. now accuses him.
The PEOPLE of Iraq paid with their liveswhen the U.S. armed and supplied Saddam, they paid with their lives when the U.S. encouraged Saddam to kill leftists, they paid with their lives when the U.S. supplied Saddam with components for biological or chemical weapons and supposedly gassed the Kurds (who our ally Turkey greatly oppresses), they paid with their lives when the U.S. baited Saddam into attacking Kuwait (the famous April Glaspie green light), leading to the first Gulf War, they paid with their lives when the U.S. led the imposition of genocidal sanctions, and they paid with their lives when the U.S. led yet another war against Iraq. The people will pay again if the U.S. installs the crooked puppet (Chalabi) the U.S. wants. And then the people will pay some more later.
Anthony: "I stand by my earlier statements that NPR is one of the only semi-mainstream media outlets giving any kind of voice and coverage to the anti-war movement."
*Name* who. Who does NPR have on. Other than the *one* day, name who else. Name more than the 2 or 3 anti-war people NPR has ever had on -- compared to the slew of pro-war, present and former, govt officials and corporate media pundits.
As for Rabbi Michael Lerner...
The rules/guidelines were agreed upon well before Lerner's name even came up as an issue.
Let's see Lerner invite someone to speak at a Tikkun convention who hypothetically once attacked Lerner, so they could criticize Lerner again at his own convention.
There were other Jews AND rabbis who spoke ON THE STAGE at the San Francisco rally. There were Jews IN THE MARCH - even in solidarity in the Palestinian contingent. There were Jews WHO WERE ORGANIZERS. There were Jews in the MEDIA pit. So, just because Michael Lerner couldn't horn his big fat New Age ego into the program TO PROMOTE HIMSELF - and decided to throw a childish temper tantrum if he couldn't get his way (and then get his New Age acolytes like you to throw a tempest) - doesn't mean shit. We will go on - went on - without him! And no one will even remember that he wasn't there!
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)